Green Turf Landscape Contractors, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Green Turf Landscape Contractors, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead

248 A.D.2d 354, 669 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2056

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 2, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 354 (Green Turf Landscape Contractors, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Green Turf Landscape Contractors, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead, 248 A.D.2d 354, 669 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2056 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered May 19, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant has demonstrated, by admissible evidence, that there exist triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff fully and satisfactorily performed the services set forth in the parties’ contract dated December 6, 1994, so as to entitle it to the payment of certain disputed claims (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Snyder v City of New York, 234 AD2d 282).

Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff’s claim, paragraph five of the subject contract entitled, “Compensation and Method of Payment”, should not be interpreted as creating an absolute right to payment solely upon the plaintiff’s submission of a payment requisition form to the Town of Hempstead. This proviso of the contract must be read in conjunction with the entire document to determine the parties’ over-all purpose and intent (see, Sunrise Mall Assocs. v Import Alley of Sunrise Mall, 211 AD2d 711).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Franco, J.), entered May 19, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant has demonstrated, by admissible evidence, that there exist triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff fully and satisfactorily performed the services set forth in the parties’ contract dated December 6, 1994, so as to entitle it to the payment of certain disputed claims (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557; Snyder v City of New York, 234 AD2d 282).

Furthermore, contrary to the plaintiff’s claim, paragraph five of the subject contract entitled, “Compensation and Method of Payment”, should not be interpreted as creating an absolute right to payment solely upon the plaintiff’s submission of a payment requisition form to the Town of Hempstead. This proviso of the contract must be read in conjunction with the entire document to determine the parties’ over-all purpose and intent (see, Sunrise Mall Assocs. v Import Alley of Sunrise Mall, 211 AD2d 711).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 354, 669 N.Y.S.2d 831, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/green-turf-landscape-contractors-inc-v-town-of-hempstead-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack